It seems that most pages on most sites have dropped their published PR at least by 1 point and some more. It's the prevalent situation.
Since everybody's PR has dropped pretty much the same way, there's nothing to worry about.
It's likely that Google has decided to clamp down on counting inbound links from dubious sources, reciprocal links, paid links, etc.
Also reducing the effect of having multiple backlinks from the same website (such as forum signature links, blog comments, etc) - they'd be counted as a single inbound link rather than hundreds or thousands. In addition, due to poorly set up forum software (most of them it seems), since it results in multiple urls with session id's, the websites may be disallowing the forum in their robots.txt file - so all outgoing links from there end up no longer contributing anything to the sites they link to.
Finally it's also possible many sites are using rel="nofollow" for their outgoing links, thus no longer passing link value (and PR) to those they link out to.
> It seems that most pages on most sites have dropped their published PR > at least by 1 point and some more. > It's the prevalent situation.
> Since everybody's PR has dropped pretty much the same way, there's > nothing to worry about.
> It's likely that Google has decided to clamp down on counting inbound > links from dubious sources, reciprocal links, paid links, etc.
> Also reducing the effect of having multiple backlinks from the same > website (such as forum signature links, blog comments, etc) - they'd > be counted as a single inbound link rather than hundreds or thousands. > In addition, due to poorly set up forum software (most of them it > seems), since it results in multiple urls with session id's, the > websites may be disallowing the forum in their robots.txt file - so > all outgoing links from there end up no longer contributing anything > to the sites they link to.
> Finally it's also possible many sites are using rel="nofollow" for > their outgoing links, thus no longer passing link value (and PR) to > those they link out to.
Both these sites are connected because one is a "All Inclusive deal" and the other is not (normal rates and conditions), but still the same Company. They link to each other simply because the Client may want to opt for an all inclusive deal or not. These sites are like this since the beggining 2 years ago.
Most forums use session id's - but thsi means urls get duplictaed ad infinitum jus by havig a different session id. Thats' badly set up forum software, robto traps in fact. So with peiople becomeing more aware of problems with getting forusm spidered, they disallow the forum from their robots.txt file until they can fix the software. This also means link from a forum no longer get counted at all, if the forum is disalowed.
Joomla is another nasty piece of software by itself. Unless you are careful, there are umpteen ways you can access the same page (e..g. homepage).
But what Phil found about your dubious inbound links is very likely a principal cause of your site loosing benefit from those incoming links.
> What does it mean "poorly set up forum software"? I use Joomla for my > websites.
> And how can i know if the backlinks sites are using rel="nofollow"? Is > is visible in the source code?
> On Oct 31, 10:55 am, webado wrote:
> > It seems that most pages on most sites have dropped their published PR > > at least by 1 point and some more. > > It's the prevalent situation.
> > Since everybody's PR has dropped pretty much the same way, there's > > nothing to worry about.
> > It's likely that Google has decided to clamp down on counting inbound > > links from dubious sources, reciprocal links, paid links, etc.
> > Also reducing the effect of having multiple backlinks from the same > > website (such as forum signature links, blog comments, etc) - they'd > > be counted as a single inbound link rather than hundreds or thousands. > > In addition, due to poorly set up forum software (most of them it > > seems), since it results in multiple urls with session id's, the > > websites may be disallowing the forum in their robots.txt file - so > > all outgoing links from there end up no longer contributing anything > > to the sites they link to.
> > Finally it's also possible many sites are using rel="nofollow" for > > their outgoing links, thus no longer passing link value (and PR) to > > those they link out to.
> What does it mean "poorly set up forum software"? I use Joomla for my > websites.
> And how can i know if the backlinks sites are using rel="nofollow"? Is > is visible in the source code?
> On Oct 31, 10:55 am, webado wrote:
> > It seems that most pages on most sites have dropped their published PR > > at least by 1 point and some more. > > It's the prevalent situation.
> > Since everybody's PR has dropped pretty much the same way, there's > > nothing to worry about.
> > It's likely that Google has decided to clamp down on counting inbound > > links from dubious sources, reciprocal links, paid links, etc.
> > Also reducing the effect of having multiple backlinks from the same > > website (such as forum signature links, blog comments, etc) - they'd > > be counted as a single inbound link rather than hundreds or thousands. > > In addition, due to poorly set up forum software (most of them it > > seems), since it results in multiple urls with session id's, the > > websites may be disallowing the forum in their robots.txt file - so > > all outgoing links from there end up no longer contributing anything > > to the sites they link to.
> > Finally it's also possible many sites are using rel="nofollow" for > > their outgoing links, thus no longer passing link value (and PR) to > > those they link out to.
I didn't do the websites. I simply own them and control de content and links according to Google Tips. I had amoitas site for many year and then I felt the need to include a reservations engine, so I turned to a company to do a nice website and they did it in DreamWeaver. It was nice, it worked but I had no control on it and everytime I needed to change something I was tied up. They Closed their business so I turned to another Company (www.javali.pt from formed university mates) and they did it in Joomla according to my specifications.
The good thing about it is I was now able to control all the data base, add images, cars, prices, written content, adjust everything according to the business needs, and all in the administration part of the site. All was made easy and I'm now independent from everyone to do adjustements. The site realy works and we have nice feedback from Clients.
What do you sugest? Stop using joomla and redo the sites in other software? Which? And is it possible to continue with joomla and still solve this situation?
> Most forums use session id's - but thsi means urls get duplictaed ad > infinitum jus by havig a different session id. Thats' badly set up > forum software, robto traps in fact. So with peiople becomeing more > aware of problems with getting forusm spidered, they disallow the > forum from their robots.txt file until they can fix the software. This > also means link from a forum no longer get counted at all, if the > forum is disalowed.
> Joomla is another nasty piece of software by itself. Unless you are > careful, there are umpteen ways you can access the same page (e..g. > homepage).
> But what Phil found about your dubious inbound links is very likely a > principal cause of your site loosing benefit from those incoming > links.
> On Oct 31, 7:08 am, mightymoita wrote:
> > Dear Webado,
> > Many thanks for your reply.
> > What does it mean "poorly set up forum software"? I use Joomla for my > > websites.
> > And how can i know if the backlinks sites are using rel="nofollow"? Is > > is visible in the source code?
> > On Oct 31, 10:55 am, webado wrote:
> > > It seems that most pages on most sites have dropped their published PR > > > at least by 1 point and some more. > > > It's the prevalent situation.
> > > Since everybody's PR has dropped pretty much the same way, there's > > > nothing to worry about.
> > > It's likely that Google has decided to clamp down on counting inbound > > > links from dubious sources, reciprocal links, paid links, etc.
> > > Also reducing the effect of having multiple backlinks from the same > > > website (such as forum signature links, blog comments, etc) - they'd > > > be counted as a single inbound link rather than hundreds or thousands. > > > In addition, due to poorly set up forum software (most of them it > > > seems), since it results in multiple urls with session id's, the > > > websites may be disallowing the forum in their robots.txt file - so > > > all outgoing links from there end up no longer contributing anything > > > to the sites they link to.
> > > Finally it's also possible many sites are using rel="nofollow" for > > > their outgoing links, thus no longer passing link value (and PR) to > > > those they link out to.
The links inside the website is not a scheme to have more links. I din't even thought they would count as back links once are inside the website. Obviously a website is not a single page and if the main page has most of the informations, there are other pages for rental conditions, FAQ, reservations engines with pages for steps, links pages, downloads, news, etc. All these pages inside the same website have the same domain. Even google has it.
Or I'm not getting or there's nothing to do with it.
Let me tell you your manners aren't the best. They must be proportional with your education. I've seen your replies to other users and your help is as good as below zero.
2nd of all you don't reply when asked!
If you take a closer look these 2 websites are from the same Company but one advertises All Inclusive and the other one not, so Clients can bounce from one site to the other in case they simply want different deals. Any of those pages is only one link once it's always on the "side menu" of the site. It's a single background. Only the center content or the pages change.
> Let me tell you your manners aren't the best. They must be > proportional with your education.
No need tp speculate. Do a vanity search on my name and I come top - first link off that page takes you to a page about my school, and there are links from that to several hundred ex-pupils.
> I've seen your replies to other users and your help is as good as > below zero.
Giggle.
> 2nd of all you don't reply when asked!
This damn thing called a "life", I'm afraid.
> If you take a closer look these 2 websites are from the same Company > but one advertises All Inclusive and the other one not, so Clients can > bounce from one site to the other in case they simply want different > deals. Any of those pages is only one link once it's always on the > "side menu" of the site. It's a single background. Only the center > content or the pages change.
If that is your real purpose, add rel=nofollow to each link. Otherwise Google's new algorithm is going to think you're trying to game it by linking between multiple domains. This is a direct contravention of Google's guidelines - Google _might_ respond just by ignoring such links, or it might actually impose a penalty. Best case is nofollow - gives you control and results in what might otherwise just be a best case.
> > Let me tell you your manners aren't the best. They must be > > proportional with your education.
> No need tp speculate. Do a vanity search on my name and I come top - > first link off that page takes you to a page about my school, and > there are links from that to several hundred ex-pupils.
> > I've seen your replies to other users and your help is as good as > > below zero.
> Giggle.
> > 2nd of all you don't reply when asked!
> This damn thing called a "life", I'm afraid.
> > If you take a closer look these 2 websites are from the same Company > > but one advertises All Inclusive and the other one not, so Clients can > > bounce from one site to the other in case they simply want different > > deals. Any of those pages is only one link once it's always on the > > "side menu" of the site. It's a single background. Only the center > > content or the pages change.
> If that is your real purpose, add rel=nofollow to each link. > Otherwise Google's new algorithm is going to think you're trying to > game it by linking between multiple domains. This is a direct > contravention of Google's guidelines - Google _might_ respond just by > ignoring such links, or it might actually impose a penalty. Best case > is nofollow - gives you control and results in what might otherwise > just be a best case.
|
